Re: [AUCTeX] Embedded previews in high-DPI?

[Konstantinos Theofilis]

> On May 19, 2016, at 4:22 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Konstantinos Theofilis <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On May 19, 2016, at 2:11 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Your thoughts about my understanding are wrong but that doesn't really
>>> matter.  OSX-only frameworks don't belong in GNU-maintained software.
>>> So the "bad idea" may still be your best bet.  I've pointed out other
>>> options.
>> 
>> 
>> I have to respectfully disagree with that argument as I think it is
>> fundamentally flawed. Emacs (which is obviously GNU-maintained
>> software) does include Cocoa-specific code, which is an OS X-only
>> framework.
> 
> It doesn't do anything the code for the other, particularly the free,
> operating systems, doesn't do in equivalent ways.  Aquamacs, which does
> more OSX-specific things, is a separate project not maintained by GNU.

In “equivalent ways”? I am curious about the definition of equivalent here, to 
be honest.
> 
>> I cannot see why Mitsuharu’s suggestion contravenes with previously
>> followed policy.
> 
> Feel free to ask Richard Stallman.

I do not understand that statement. Am I supposed to stop discussing after that?

> I've pointed out viable options that would fit within the GNU
> maintenance guidelines.  Options that render the free operating systems
> second-class choices aren't viable for a GNU project and will have to be
> pursued outside the GNU umbrella.

So, this is the real reason? If Emacs on a non-free operating system behaves 
better than on a free operating system, we have to lobotomise it in order to 
not make the free OSs unattractive?

With the same logic, Emacs font rendering looks way better on my OS X machine 
than on my Linux machines. Should we cripple that in order for the OS X version 
of Emacs to not look better?

If Linux gets proper full HighDPI support, then it will be ok for Emacs on OS X 
to use what Mitsuharu is suggesting? All of them honest questions.

> 
> This isn't a shouting match or a bazaar.  You can disagree all you want
> with GNU policy, but as long as AUCTeX is a GNU project using GNU
> resources and branding we are bound to follow the obligations coming
> with it spelled out in the maintenance guidelines, in spirit even more
> so than in letter.
> 

No it is not a shouting match or a bazaar. It is supposed to be a discussion 
but obviously a discussion is not welcome. I think my argument in the previous 
email was quite logical.

I disagreed with your argument that OS-X specific frameworks have no place in a 
GNU-maintained project and I pointed out the paradox of using Cocoa in Emacs.

I did not know about the policy of not allowing features that behave better on 
non-free OSs. Which is a VERY different argument that your original one.

In any case, the responsibility for feature-parity should be on the people 
maintaining the lower level stacks of free OSs to provide decent HighDPI 
support, since HighDPI screens are so common place these days. I do not see why 
software like Emacs and Auctex have to handicap themselves.

No more followups from me, since it turned out that the point was not about the 
use of OS X-specific frameworks but about not making Emacs looking better on OS 
X (which totally does even now by the way).

Kind regards,
Kostas Theofilis